A bit later I came across an article in the New York Times about a different but related neighborhood catastrophe — oil spills from burst pipelines — and it reminded me that other neighborhoods have a different but very real threat related to fossil fuels.

In his article “Amid Pipeline Debate, Two Costly Cleanups Forever Change Towns” reporter Dan Frosch details the ongoing crisis caused by two pipeline oil spills, one in Marshall, Michigan, in 2010 and the other in Mayflower, Arkansas, last March. Combined, the incidents have displaced more than 200 residents, forced out of their homes because of air and/or water quality issues or because of “diminished property value.” And of course it’s not just homes and homeowners. The spill has caused some businesses to shutter, while some businesspeople still working, like a local microbrewer, worry about how the damage may impact their operations — and ingestible products.

And keeping water supplies, farmlands, rivers, homes and businesses safe from the pipeline spills is no easy task. Just ask the people of Mayflower, Arkansas, who (along with the federal government) have sued ExxonMobil after one of the company’s pipelines carrying heavy crude ruptured on March 29, 2013, sending 3,500-19,000 barrels of crude into the small town. Oil, some may argue, keeps our energy-intensive society going, but when the toxic stuff gets where it shouldn’t, it’s not good for our health or well-being.

Between 1993 and 2012, there hasn’t been a single year without a “significant incident” or property damage, and there have been only a handful of years without fatalities. As for injuries during the same time frame, only 2002 went injury-free from the transport of liquid fuels. (See also here.)

The Safest Ain’t So Safe

So what’s to be done? Proponents of the oil and gas industry seem to be telling us: not much. Their refrain after every spill seems to be: “We’re sorry,” followed by something along the lines of “pipelines are the safest way to transport liquid fuels.”

A hearing [pdf] in the House in 2010 following the pipeline spills in Michigan, Salt Lake City and Chicago underscores this.

“Pipelines are the safest way to transport liquid fuels.” —Andy Black, President and CEO of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines

“[T]ransport by pipe is still the safest way to get our energy supplies from one place to another.” —Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)

“[T]ransporting … fuels through pipelines remains the safest means of distribution to families and businesses throughout this country.” —Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL)

“[T]ransporting our fuels through pipelines is the safest, most reliable, economically and environmentally friendly way to transport fuels.” —Rep. Gene Green (D-TX)

In other words, if you want oil you’d better be prepared to live with the spills, if you are unlucky enough to live near a pipeline. Which begs the question: how likely are you to be unlucky?

I am not terribly sanguine about this new bill. With the government cutting back because of the sequester, it seems unlikely that we will see a significant increase in oversight, and a fine of $2 million for companies that gross billions has got to be a drop in the bucket.

A Solution?

It seems fairly certain that as long as we gulp down barrels and barrels of oil each day, we are going to have pipelines and pipeline spills. There is a solution, admittedly not an easy one: get off the gasoline kick.

Which brings me back to that phone call. After the call I was pretty upset, needed to let off some steam. So I got on my bike and toured the, at least for now, frack-free neighborhood. So there, I said to no one in particular as I pedaled along, I don’t need no stinking oil or gas. Of course the very next day I got into my car and drove to work — hey, at least it’s a hybrid.